Every day, millions of us scroll through social media and are met with an endless stream of food advice. One post promises a supplement that will transform our health, another suggests a miracle drink for quick weight loss, and another praises a “superfood” as the answer to everything. It is easy to feel overwhelmed, and even easier to trust a familiar face or a polished video. But how much of this information is actually reliable? That is the question at the heart of the Infoodmation project, coordinated by the European Food Information Council (EUFIC) together with Fundación Maldita.es. In a recent stakeholder workshop, researchers shared some eye-opening findings from an analysis of more than 540,000 social media posts, including about 24,000 related to food, as well as a separate collection of 322 potentially misleading examples from 13 European countries. These examples came from social media, packaging, and advertising. What they found is not simply a list of false claims, but a pattern of confusion, exaggeration, and missing context that makes it hard for ordinary people to know what to eat. As Betty Chang, Infoodmation project coordinator, put it, a promising supplement or a quick weight-loss tip can sound convincing, especially when it comes from someone we trust, but the evidence behind those promises is not always clear or properly contextualized. This is why we need to make reliable food information easier to find and understand, with particular care for children, young people, and those living with chronic health conditions.
The research revealed that certain themes dominate misleading food messaging online, especially in posts from popular influencers across 16 European countries. Among the misinformation narratives studied, supplements appeared most frequently, showing up in 474 posts. Weight loss came next with 256 posts, followed by superfoods in 242 posts and detox in 76 posts. It is important to note that these numbers do not mean every discussion of supplements or weight loss is misleading. Rather, they show that these topics are especially prone to exaggeration and unsubstantiated promises. The wider collection of food communication examples also exposed a recurring pattern: messages that suggest “natural” means better, that superfoods have exceptional powers, or that local and traditional foods are inherently superior. Interestingly, messages about local and traditional foods appeared more often on packaging and at physical points of sale, while social media was the most common channel overall for the collected examples. Short videos were the leading format, which makes sense in a world where attention spans are short and visual content travels fast. The analysis also found that food industry actors were the largest source of these examples, accounting for 52 percent of the collection. At the same time, the research distinguished between two broad styles of messaging. There are aspirational messages that appeal to our desire for health, naturalness, and a better version of ourselves, and there are alarmist messages that portray common foods as dangerous or toxic. The latter were more associated with influencers, who often rely on fear and urgency to capture attention.
Perhaps the most striking finding is that potentially misleading communication often does not involve an outright lie. Instead, it works through suggestion, exaggeration, and missing context. In the collected examples that contained textual health or sustainability claims, 67 percent did not provide the nutritional or ingredient information needed to actually evaluate them. This means a product could be described as healthy and sustainable without giving people the basic facts to check whether that is true. Other techniques included layering logos and labels onto packaging or posts to suggest credibility, using dubious awards or certifications that sound impressive but mean little, designing advertisements to look like editorial content, and relying on sensational or alarmist language. These tricks are effective because they play on our emotions and our trust in visual cues. A shiny badge, a confident influencer, or a scary headline can feel more convincing than a dry list of ingredients. The result is that people are not necessarily being told something that is obviously false; they are being led to draw conclusions that the evidence does not support. This makes misinformation harder to spot and harder to resist. It also means that simply telling people to “check the facts” is not enough. We need to help them recognize these tactics, so they can pause and ask critical questions before believing a message or buying a product.
The workshop also highlighted who may be more vulnerable to these messages. Children and young people are a major concern because their ability to assess persuasive messages is still developing. They are especially influenced by emotional appeals, social belonging, and the desire to fit in with peers. Colourful packaging, health halos, and alarmist social media content can easily shape their attitudes toward food in ways that are not grounded in science. People living with chronic health conditions are another group that may be particularly susceptible. When someone is struggling with a condition and looking for relief or treatment, the promise of a simple dietary solution can be incredibly tempting, even if there is little evidence behind it. The workshop also highlighted the vulnerability of people with fewer socioeconomic resources, who may have less access to trustworthy advice, less time to compare information, and less financial room to experiment with expensive supplements or special diets. For these groups, the consequences of misinformation can be greater, and the path to reliable guidance is often more difficult. This is why the findings point to the need for accessible, trustworthy advice that meets people where they are, and that takes into account the real pressures and constraints of daily life. It is not enough to produce accurate information; it must be reachable, understandable, and relevant to the people who need it most.
New challenges are emerging as well, particularly around artificial intelligence. AI-generated food advice is becoming more common, and while it can be helpful in some ways, it also brings serious risks. The workshop highlighted how AI tools can reinforce mistaken beliefs or provide answers that sound convincing but miss important context, including a person’s medical history. For example, an AI might suggest a diet based on a single study or a popular trend, without knowing that the person has a health condition that makes that advice unsafe. There are also concerns that AI responses may be less accurate for vulnerable users, who may be more likely to trust a machine-generated answer simply because it is presented with confidence. These risks were discussed at the workshop, though the analysis itself did not test AI advice. Still, they point to a future where distinguishing reliable information from misleading claims will become even more complicated. As Rocío Benavente Pérez, Deputy Director and Sustainability and Development Strategy Coordinator at Fundación Maldita.es, explained, the challenge is not always a claim that is clearly false. A food message can also mislead by leaving out important context or making one product sound like a solution to a much bigger problem. We need to help people recognize those tactics and make reliable information easier to find where they already look for advice. This means going beyond simply debunking false claims and instead building a media environment that supports healthier choices.
So what can be done? The workshop proposed a range of responses, and they involve shared responsibility across many parts of society. There is a clear need for better enforcement of rules on food marketing to children, as well as closer oversight of influencer content and paid partnerships. Social media platforms also have a greater responsibility to moderate harmful misinformation and to promote reliable sources. At the same time, education is essential. People need to be taught how to assess food information critically, just as they are taught how to read and write. This kind of media literacy should start early and continue throughout life, helping people become more confident and less easily manipulated by emotional appeals. Businesses, too, are encouraged to take responsibility beyond simply meeting legal requirements, by being more transparent about their ingredients, their claims, and the evidence behind them. But reliable advice also needs to hold people’s attention. The workshop highlighted that science communicators can learn from marketing and influencers by using simple language and engaging formats, such as short videos. Instead of criticizing influencers, scientists can collaborate with them to create accurate content that is still entertaining and relatable. Healthcare professionals also need greater support in helping patients improve their food and health literacy, so that these conversations become a normal part of care rather than an afterthought. All of these contributions will help shape recommendations for governments, businesses, and civil society on how to communicate about healthier and more sustainable diets. The challenge is not just to better inform people, but to build a world where the healthy choice is also the easy choice, and where trust can be placed in messages that have evidence behind them.